-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Aljunied GRC MPs Outreach...
- Thread starter sengkang
- Start date
"The target of many netizens’ grouses is perhaps not at the level of the individual, but at the powers-that-be who have opened the gates to admit those individuals in the first place." - Gerald Giam, NCMP, in an article for the Straits Times on Saturday. http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/what-lies-beneath-online-vitriol
Office Bearers of the Workers’ Party for the Term of 2012 to 2014
The Workers’ Party (WP) held its first Central Executive Council (CEC) meeting on 4 September 2012 following the election of the CEC in August.
The office bearers of the Workers’ Party for the term of 2012 to 2014 are as follows:
<tbody>
</tbody>
The Workers’ Party (WP) held its first Central Executive Council (CEC) meeting on 4 September 2012 following the election of the CEC in August.
The office bearers of the Workers’ Party for the term of 2012 to 2014 are as follows:
| Chairman: | Ms Sylvia Lim Swee Lian |
| Vice-Chairman: | Mr Mohammed Rahizan bin Yaacob |
| Secretary-General: | Mr Low Thia Khiang |
| Organising Secretary: | Ms Ng Swee Bee |
| Treasurer: | Mr Yee Jenn Jong |
| Deputy Treasurer: | Ms Frieda Chan Sio Phing (new appointment) |
| Chair, WP Media Team: | Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song |
| Vice-Chair, WP Media Team: | Ms Jane Leong (new appointment) |
| Webmaster: | Mr Koh Choong Yong |
| Deputy Webmaster: | Ms Lee Li Lian (new appointment) |
| President, WP Youth Wing: | Mr Muhamad Faisal bin Abdul Manap (new appointment) |
| Council Members: Mr Chen Show Mao | |
| Ms Glenda Han Su May | |
| Mr Png Eng Huat | |
| Mr Pritam Singh |
<tbody>
</tbody>
Last edited:
[h=2]Parliamentary Questions by WP MPs - 10 September 2012 Sitting
[/h]
by The Workers' Party on Saturday, September 8, 2012 at 6:54pm ·
These are the questions that WP MPs have filed for the upcoming Parliament sitting on 10 September 2012.
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER*
*4. Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for National Development whether the Government discovered any discrepancies in the recent purchase of Brompton bicycles by the National Parks Board (NParks); whether the Ministry has investigated the purchase for possible breaches of procedures and possible conflict of interest between the sole tenderer and NParks officers and, if so, what are the results of the investigation; what was the urgency in purchasing the bicycles which accounts for the unusually short tender window; and whether the Ministry is reviewing its procurement procedures to introduce greater oversight of tender evaluations.
*5. Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for National Development with regard to the purchase of the Brompton bicycles, what prompted the Ministry to initiate audit proceedings on the procurement process; and what role did the online media, particularly the blog post on therealsingapore.com, play in the Ministry's decision to report the matter to CPIB; and the Ministry's press statement on 24 July 2012.
*11. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Minister for Transport what is the outcome of the $43 million pilot programme undertaken by the Ministry since 2009 to design and construct dedicated cycling paths in the five selected HDB towns of Tampines, Pasir Ris, Taman Jurong, Sembawang and Yishun; whether there will be a detailed public report on the outcome of the programme; what are the lessons learnt that can be applied to having similar cycling paths or cycling lanes in the rest of Singapore; and what other lessons have the Cycling Facilitation Committee learnt that may be applied to improving safety for both cyclists and other road users.
*22. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for National Development for each year from 2009 to 2011 and for the first half of 2012, what is the average waiting time for Build-to-Order (BTO) flats from the time of flat application to the Estimated Delivery Possession Date (EDPD); whether HDB aims to reduce this waiting time; what is the targeted waiting time that HDB is aiming for; and when this target is expected to be achieved.
*27. Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap: To ask the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports with regard to the plan to build up to 40 Integrated Day Facilities (IDFs) serving up to 6,000 elderly by 2016 whether the plan to build new IDFs in Bishan-Toa Payoh and Tampines in 2012 will proceed; whether the plan to upgrade six existing Day Care/Day Rehabilitation Centres to IDFs in 2012 will go ahead and where these Day Care/Day Rehabilitation Centres are; what criteria are used to determine IDF sites and whether these include convertible old town centre facilities and areas having a higher than national average percentage of residents who are above 50 years old; and whether the Ministry will release a masterplan showing where and when the 40 IDFs will be built.
*38. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health for each year from 2006 to 2011 how many MediShield policyholders have had their MediShield policies terminated due to non-payment of their premiums; what are the main reasons for non-payment; how many are refused re-enrolment due to medical conditions that developed after they were originally enrolled in MediShield; and what does the Government do to assist policyholders with their MediShield premium payments before their policies get terminated.
*46. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports what criteria are used to determine that the PAP Community Foundation and NTUC First Campus are non-profit bodies to qualify for recurrent grants as non-profit anchor preschool operators; what lessons have been learnt from working with these two non-profit Anchor Operators (AOPs) including the impact of the support given to these AOPs on other industry players; and how many voluntary welfare organisations and private operators applied to be AOPs but were not selected.
*52. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Transport what is the current public transport mode share; whether the Government expects to meet its targeted public transport mode share of 70% by 2020 as stated in its 2008 Land Transport Master Plan; and what measures will be put in place to ensure that this target is achieved.
*60. Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for National Development whether the ethnic limit of 25% for the Malay ethnic group at the block level in all HDB rental flats has been reached and, if so, when; whether HDB has plans to increase this limit for the Malay ethnic group at the block level; and whether HDB will consider allocating rental flats on a strict needs basis only to avoid rejection or delay as a result of the applicants' preference of rental zone.
*61. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Minister for National Development how are complaints and feedback on bird nuisance being handled at AVA now that the agency is tasked to coordinate the work of all agencies on this area whenever such problems arise; and what long-term solution is AVA looking at to tackle bird nuisance and when can the public expect such initiatives to roll out.
*67. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports to date, how many Citizens' Consultative Committees, Community Club Management Committees, Residents' Committees, and Neighbourhood Committees are respectively registered under the People's Association; how many paid staff are there in each of these committees; and how much funding is given to each of these committees per year from 2005 to 2011.
*68. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for National Development what due diligence does the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) exercise before granting approval for condominium developers to use tempered glass in panels used as safety barriers at balconies despite the associated risk of spontaneous breakage; what led the BCA to require the use of laminated glass instead in such panels with effect from July 2011; and what is BCA's recommendation to resolve the safety issues for condominium developments which were constructed before application of the July 2011 ruling.
*71. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider active monitoring of tuition centres and agencies to ensure credentials of tutors are genuine; and working through an industry body to provide a database of tutors whose credentials have been verified by such an independent body.
MEMORANDUM
Matter proposed to be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment (Standing Order No. 2(8)(b)):
Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Proposal for Transforming the Childcare Sector
(Non-Constituency Member)
QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER
1. Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap: To ask the Prime Minister what are the actual average weekly work hours of civil servants in executive positions and in non-executive positions in 2011 and in the first half of 2012; whether the Government will consider collecting and publishing quarterly figures of such work hours of civil servants in these respective positions; lowering such work hours to around 40 hours; which Ministries and statutory boards practise 'blue sky days' and at what frequency; and whether the Government will consider encouraging Ministries and statutory boards to practise 'blue sky days' on a weekly basis.
3. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether there is any rise or trend of concern in property crimes, particularly housebreakings and thefts in dwellings, recorded in the first half of 2012 compared to the previous year; and what conditions will trigger the display of a police signboard at a location informing residents of the occurrence of a specified offence in the area, in particular, whether such a display indicates a prevalence or trend of concern.
8. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for National Development for each year from 2006 to 2011 and for each of the HDB town regions how many commercial premises are owned by HDB Singaporeans/Singaporean-owned companies and PRs and foreigners/foreign-owned companies; what is the average rental per square foot for HDB shops owned by HDB Singaporeans/Singaporean-owned companies and PRs and foreigners/foreign-owned companies; whether foreign and private ownership of HDB commercial premises has led to rising rentals; and what is the Ministry doing to contain rentals of HDB commercial premises so as to keep costs down for small businesses operating in these premises.
9. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Minister for National Development for each of the years from 2009 to 2011 and the first half of 2012 how many applicants applied under the HDB Fiancé/Fiancée Scheme; and what percentage of the applicants forfeited their deposits because they decided not to proceed with marriage and, of these applicants, what was the average time spent waiting for their flats.
10. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Defence for each of the last 10 years, what is the Government's total expenditure on the National Day Parade, with an itemised expenditure breakdown including associated manpower costs for civil servants and soldiers on parade duty.
11. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in respect of the Enhanced Air Quality Reporting for the pollutant standards index (PSI) and particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) where are the monitoring stations in the town centres in each region and at what height are these stations situated; how many roadside stations are there to measure kerbside pollution in view of vehicular emissions; what are the justifications for the current reporting times of 8am, 12noon and 4pm of each day and whether the Ministry will consider increasing the frequency of regular reporting; whether the Ministry is studying more comprehensive Geographic Information System tracking of fine particulate pollution; whether the Ministry will consider providing 24-hour forecasts of PSI and PM2.5 levels for public information; and whether the report of the Advisory Committee on Ambient Air Quality will be made public.
13. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Health whether the Government will extend the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) by raising the qualifying criteria of annual value of residence to a limit above $13,000 so as to cover more economically inactive elderly citizens, including those living in non-premium private and landed properties.
19. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports over the past 24 months how many new void deck childcare centres are allocated to PAP Community Foundation (PCF) and NTUC First Campus respectively; what is the average set up and furnishing grant given to each of these two operators per new centre; how does the Ministry decide on the allocation of new centres to these two operators; and what recurrent and other grants have been given to these two operators.
20. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports over the past 24 months how many new void deck childcare centres are awarded to non-profit operators other than PAP Community Foundation (PCF) and NTUC First Campus; what is the average set up and furnishing grant given to these operators for these new centres; and what are the criteria for deciding when a void deck centre is to be made available to these non-profit operators who are not anchor operators.
[/h]
by The Workers' Party on Saturday, September 8, 2012 at 6:54pm ·
These are the questions that WP MPs have filed for the upcoming Parliament sitting on 10 September 2012.
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER*
*4. Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for National Development whether the Government discovered any discrepancies in the recent purchase of Brompton bicycles by the National Parks Board (NParks); whether the Ministry has investigated the purchase for possible breaches of procedures and possible conflict of interest between the sole tenderer and NParks officers and, if so, what are the results of the investigation; what was the urgency in purchasing the bicycles which accounts for the unusually short tender window; and whether the Ministry is reviewing its procurement procedures to introduce greater oversight of tender evaluations.
*5. Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for National Development with regard to the purchase of the Brompton bicycles, what prompted the Ministry to initiate audit proceedings on the procurement process; and what role did the online media, particularly the blog post on therealsingapore.com, play in the Ministry's decision to report the matter to CPIB; and the Ministry's press statement on 24 July 2012.
*11. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Minister for Transport what is the outcome of the $43 million pilot programme undertaken by the Ministry since 2009 to design and construct dedicated cycling paths in the five selected HDB towns of Tampines, Pasir Ris, Taman Jurong, Sembawang and Yishun; whether there will be a detailed public report on the outcome of the programme; what are the lessons learnt that can be applied to having similar cycling paths or cycling lanes in the rest of Singapore; and what other lessons have the Cycling Facilitation Committee learnt that may be applied to improving safety for both cyclists and other road users.
*22. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for National Development for each year from 2009 to 2011 and for the first half of 2012, what is the average waiting time for Build-to-Order (BTO) flats from the time of flat application to the Estimated Delivery Possession Date (EDPD); whether HDB aims to reduce this waiting time; what is the targeted waiting time that HDB is aiming for; and when this target is expected to be achieved.
*27. Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap: To ask the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports with regard to the plan to build up to 40 Integrated Day Facilities (IDFs) serving up to 6,000 elderly by 2016 whether the plan to build new IDFs in Bishan-Toa Payoh and Tampines in 2012 will proceed; whether the plan to upgrade six existing Day Care/Day Rehabilitation Centres to IDFs in 2012 will go ahead and where these Day Care/Day Rehabilitation Centres are; what criteria are used to determine IDF sites and whether these include convertible old town centre facilities and areas having a higher than national average percentage of residents who are above 50 years old; and whether the Ministry will release a masterplan showing where and when the 40 IDFs will be built.
*38. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health for each year from 2006 to 2011 how many MediShield policyholders have had their MediShield policies terminated due to non-payment of their premiums; what are the main reasons for non-payment; how many are refused re-enrolment due to medical conditions that developed after they were originally enrolled in MediShield; and what does the Government do to assist policyholders with their MediShield premium payments before their policies get terminated.
*46. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports what criteria are used to determine that the PAP Community Foundation and NTUC First Campus are non-profit bodies to qualify for recurrent grants as non-profit anchor preschool operators; what lessons have been learnt from working with these two non-profit Anchor Operators (AOPs) including the impact of the support given to these AOPs on other industry players; and how many voluntary welfare organisations and private operators applied to be AOPs but were not selected.
*52. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Transport what is the current public transport mode share; whether the Government expects to meet its targeted public transport mode share of 70% by 2020 as stated in its 2008 Land Transport Master Plan; and what measures will be put in place to ensure that this target is achieved.
*60. Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for National Development whether the ethnic limit of 25% for the Malay ethnic group at the block level in all HDB rental flats has been reached and, if so, when; whether HDB has plans to increase this limit for the Malay ethnic group at the block level; and whether HDB will consider allocating rental flats on a strict needs basis only to avoid rejection or delay as a result of the applicants' preference of rental zone.
*61. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Minister for National Development how are complaints and feedback on bird nuisance being handled at AVA now that the agency is tasked to coordinate the work of all agencies on this area whenever such problems arise; and what long-term solution is AVA looking at to tackle bird nuisance and when can the public expect such initiatives to roll out.
*67. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports to date, how many Citizens' Consultative Committees, Community Club Management Committees, Residents' Committees, and Neighbourhood Committees are respectively registered under the People's Association; how many paid staff are there in each of these committees; and how much funding is given to each of these committees per year from 2005 to 2011.
*68. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for National Development what due diligence does the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) exercise before granting approval for condominium developers to use tempered glass in panels used as safety barriers at balconies despite the associated risk of spontaneous breakage; what led the BCA to require the use of laminated glass instead in such panels with effect from July 2011; and what is BCA's recommendation to resolve the safety issues for condominium developments which were constructed before application of the July 2011 ruling.
*71. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will consider active monitoring of tuition centres and agencies to ensure credentials of tutors are genuine; and working through an industry body to provide a database of tutors whose credentials have been verified by such an independent body.
MEMORANDUM
Matter proposed to be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment (Standing Order No. 2(8)(b)):
Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Proposal for Transforming the Childcare Sector
(Non-Constituency Member)
QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER
1. Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap: To ask the Prime Minister what are the actual average weekly work hours of civil servants in executive positions and in non-executive positions in 2011 and in the first half of 2012; whether the Government will consider collecting and publishing quarterly figures of such work hours of civil servants in these respective positions; lowering such work hours to around 40 hours; which Ministries and statutory boards practise 'blue sky days' and at what frequency; and whether the Government will consider encouraging Ministries and statutory boards to practise 'blue sky days' on a weekly basis.
3. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether there is any rise or trend of concern in property crimes, particularly housebreakings and thefts in dwellings, recorded in the first half of 2012 compared to the previous year; and what conditions will trigger the display of a police signboard at a location informing residents of the occurrence of a specified offence in the area, in particular, whether such a display indicates a prevalence or trend of concern.
8. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for National Development for each year from 2006 to 2011 and for each of the HDB town regions how many commercial premises are owned by HDB Singaporeans/Singaporean-owned companies and PRs and foreigners/foreign-owned companies; what is the average rental per square foot for HDB shops owned by HDB Singaporeans/Singaporean-owned companies and PRs and foreigners/foreign-owned companies; whether foreign and private ownership of HDB commercial premises has led to rising rentals; and what is the Ministry doing to contain rentals of HDB commercial premises so as to keep costs down for small businesses operating in these premises.
9. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Minister for National Development for each of the years from 2009 to 2011 and the first half of 2012 how many applicants applied under the HDB Fiancé/Fiancée Scheme; and what percentage of the applicants forfeited their deposits because they decided not to proceed with marriage and, of these applicants, what was the average time spent waiting for their flats.
10. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Defence for each of the last 10 years, what is the Government's total expenditure on the National Day Parade, with an itemised expenditure breakdown including associated manpower costs for civil servants and soldiers on parade duty.
11. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in respect of the Enhanced Air Quality Reporting for the pollutant standards index (PSI) and particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) where are the monitoring stations in the town centres in each region and at what height are these stations situated; how many roadside stations are there to measure kerbside pollution in view of vehicular emissions; what are the justifications for the current reporting times of 8am, 12noon and 4pm of each day and whether the Ministry will consider increasing the frequency of regular reporting; whether the Ministry is studying more comprehensive Geographic Information System tracking of fine particulate pollution; whether the Ministry will consider providing 24-hour forecasts of PSI and PM2.5 levels for public information; and whether the report of the Advisory Committee on Ambient Air Quality will be made public.
13. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Health whether the Government will extend the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) by raising the qualifying criteria of annual value of residence to a limit above $13,000 so as to cover more economically inactive elderly citizens, including those living in non-premium private and landed properties.
19. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports over the past 24 months how many new void deck childcare centres are allocated to PAP Community Foundation (PCF) and NTUC First Campus respectively; what is the average set up and furnishing grant given to each of these two operators per new centre; how does the Ministry decide on the allocation of new centres to these two operators; and what recurrent and other grants have been given to these two operators.
20. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports over the past 24 months how many new void deck childcare centres are awarded to non-profit operators other than PAP Community Foundation (PCF) and NTUC First Campus; what is the average set up and furnishing grant given to these operators for these new centres; and what are the criteria for deciding when a void deck centre is to be made available to these non-profit operators who are not anchor operators.
[h=2]Serangoon Division August 2012 Updates[/h]
MP Ms Sylvia Lim at one of the house visits to Cowdray Avenue. — at Serangoon Division.
Break Fast Event at Al Istiqamah Mosque — at Serangoon Division.
MP Ms Sylvia Lim attending one of the 7th Month dinners which she was invited. — at Serangoon Division.
MP Ms Sylvia Lim at one of the house visits to Cowdray Avenue. — at Serangoon Division.
Break Fast Event at Al Istiqamah Mosque — at Serangoon Division.
MP Ms Sylvia Lim attending one of the 7th Month dinners which she was invited. — at Serangoon Division.
[h=6]The Workers' Party[/h]
[h=1]Proposal for transforming the child care sector – NCMP Yee Jenn Jong[/h]
by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong
(attached graphs)
Mr Speaker, I like to add my suggestions for reforms to the child care industry even as the government is looking at how to boldly transform this sector.
I wish to declare that a part of my business supplies products and services to preschools. I have also previously managed and owned child care centres but have no longer been doing so for the past 7 years. This proposal is to improve the industry to benefit consumers. It will not benefit my business.
I will first speak in Mandarin.
新加坡的托儿企业开始于70年代。当时，只有几家私人运营商和非盈利运营商。
四到六岁的孩子可被幼稚园或托儿所照顾。托儿服务包括学前教育。但由于幼稚园的学费较低，幼稚园成为大多数家长为儿童提供学前教育的首选。
到了90年代，由于有更多双薪家庭的产生，托儿企业开始发展起来。在过去十年里，它的发展更急速。在工作场所开设托儿所变得常见。在2004年初, 有651间托儿所。到了今年6月,这数目增加到987间. 在这期间里，托儿所招收的儿童人数从38,455名增加到75,456名。许多组屋新镇里的托儿所供不应求, 有的报名後甚至要排队等一年以上。
包括婴儿护理在内,托儿所目前照顾近9万名儿童,跟幼稚园的9万三千名学生差不多。幼稚园登记人数在过去的十年里逐渐减少。依这个趋势来看，托儿所在数量上将快超越幼稚园了。因此，托儿所会在我们社会中扮演重要的角色。
在2004年初，托儿所平均的全日学费是每月572元。到了2008年底,学费增到699元。目前，平均学费为831元。
2008年, 政府增加托儿服务费用的津贴。全日学费每月的津贴从150元增加到300元，从以上数据来看,我们可看到的是在津贴增加的同时，托儿所的平均学费也同幅度 增加。如果我们分析私人托儿所的学费,我相信其学费的增长超过政府津贴的增长，因为它们的租金和劳工成本增加得很快。今天的早报就提到私人托儿所租金的困 难状况。
在最近的连氏基金(Lien foundation)调查，90％的托儿服务使用者认为，学前教育是昂贵或非常昂贵的。该调查还指出一个严重问题：托儿学费高使到夫妻不想要更多的孩子。
我们是否可能有大众化，价格合理，良好的托儿服务吗？我认为可以。现在，我用英语来解释。
In the child care industry, there are many private operators, most with one or a few centres while several run chain stores.
We also have non-profit operators, dominated by NTUC First Campus and PCF Sparkletots. They are called Anchor Operators, so determined after an exercise in 2009. The criteria used included: (a) $5 million paid-up capital, (b) non-profit and (c) without any religious or racial affiliation.
Anchor Operators function mostly from HDB void decks, at rents of between $2 to $4 per square metre as disclosed by MCYS. For a typical centre of 400-500 sqm, this means monthly rent of $1,000 onwards. They receive generous set-up and furnishing grants for each new centre. In addition, Anchors get recurrent grant for manpower development and learning programmes which is estimated to go into $30 million per year.
MCYS publishes upcoming new centres from HDB and SLA. From its website, I see just a few centres available to private and non profit operators. Yet at the opening of the 100th NTUC centre in October last year, NTUC declared it will open 50 new centres over the next 2 years, which is one every fortnight. PCF too had been growing just as rapidly in the last three years. Just five years ago, PCF was a small child care player. Today, it is number 2 with 90 centres, just behind NTUC. The many new centres by these two do not match the very small number of published centres for non profit operators. Are they given unpublished quotas?
We are told that the role of non profit and Anchor operators is to bring cost down while maintaining quality.
Sir, there is no magic in non profit or in Anchor Operators. The lower fees they provide can be matched by private operators. I will now demonstrate that if private operators get the same benefits as non profit and indeed the Anchor Operators, they have shown that they could match the fees of non profit peers.
Financial modelling for child care is straightforward. The main start-up cost is renovation, fitting out, and investment in resources. Set-up cost can be high, running into several hundred thousand dollars per centre.
In a typical centre paying competitive rents, manpower and rent account for some 80% of all ongoing operating costs. Private operators function from landed houses, commercial and government-owned buildings or purpose-built HDB void decks. Tenancy is often subjected to bidding. When tenancy expires, there is usually open bidding or adjustments to market rate. Competition has caused rents to be in excess of $10,000 to even as high as $40,000 per month in recent tenders.
Anchor Operators get choice new sites regularly at highly subsidized rents. They receive start-up, furnishing, maintenance and recurrent grants. These give them huge operating benefits over competitors.
The difference in monthly rent between non profit and private operators can be $15,000 per month or more. Divide $15,000 by a typical centre enrolment of 75 children. That works out to around $200 cost advantage per child per month. With setup grants, Anchor Operators need to provide less for amortization of investment. They get ongoing grants to defray costs. Yet with these cost advantages, non-profit’s median fees is currently just two hundred over dollars lower than that of private operators. We can find private centres whose fees are not much higher than that of Anchor Operators. Are Anchor Operators with all these cost advantages, really doing enough to keep fees affordable?
Sir, there are other industry data to support my claim.
In a parliament reply this year, MCYS disclosed that EtonHouse, a premium operator with fees of $1,500 per month, charges only $728 per month at its Hampton Preschool. The centre is a collaboration with PCF. PCF secured the site at low rent, and can enjoy other grants. EtonHouse is responsible for programme delivery, set-up and pedagogy. According to a speech by Mr Wong Kan Seng in 2009 , EtonHouse manages the centre and was selected because PCF wanted to work with a private operator that could deliver ‘high quality programmes’. While there could be variations in operations compared to a typical EtonHouse’s centre, the fact is, EtonHouse could deliver ‘high quality programmes’ at less than half of its usual fees when it operates at a void deck that enjoys subsidised rents and grants.
In the 1990s, government buildings started to provide for workplace childcare. There was an interesting practice then to charge $1 or other token monthly rent for purpose-built child care facilities which catered to children of staff working in the building. Bids were called. I noted that in open competition, these sites went to established private players whose own centres charged in the mid to upper price range.
The condition for low rent then was that fees for children of staff in the buildings must be kept low. Premium private operators could match prevailing fees of non profit operators.
Today, costs are escalating due mainly to rent and manpower. Manpower cost affects all in the industry. Anchor Operators with recurrent grants can better retain staff, head-hunt from other centres and deal with rising costs. Rent is steadily rising in our competitive market.
This has caused fees to rise. Out of pocket payments by parents in many private centres today are higher than before subsidies were increased in 2008. MCYS has no control over fees. Centres just need to give ‘ample’ notice to parents, which MCYS recommends as 3 months, and then fees will go up.
The government has announced new measures for the industry. While they may be initiated with good intent, I fear it could end up creating more unfair competition, destroying the diversity and innovation in our current system.
I have a proposal to bring costs down while pushing for quality and diversity – Child care as a public good with private partnership through contestability.
I noted that in delivering public goods such as transport, the government has pumped billions in rail and bus investments without expecting payback from private operators or charging infrastructure at market rent to them. We were told this is to bring the cost of public transport to a level that people can accept.
If we wish for young working couples to be able to afford child care and be encouraged to have more children, then we have a case to use a public good’s approach for child care.
Government can build and lease out centres at managed low rent. All its existing sites can come under the model. Based on answers in parliament, there are 290 void deck centres for non profit and 176 for private operators in void deck and JTC buildings, and another 52 in government buildings. That’s 518 centres, roughly 52.4% of all child care in Singapore. With 200 more centres to be built mostly in government controlled spaces, the share of sites under government’s control will rise.
Old schools, disused community centres and other SLA spaces can be purpose-built by the government into mega child care facilities, even housing different operators under one roof. Child care generally should be within 2-3 km of workplaces or homes. Many small void decks in new flats are not ideal for child care, limiting options in new towns. We can have mega child care sites as long as we ensure there is easy access by parents, with roads and parking well planned.
We can utilise unused land parcels next to primary schools. There are small plots around some primary schools which are not big enough for meaningful commercial projects. We can tap on infrastructure of the primary schools to add new preschool facilities. This will make use of unutilised space, save on infrastructure costs and cultivate exchange between preschool and primary school.
The government can negotiate as main tenant with large private landlords for sites as a bloc to supplement their bank of child care sites. It can work with property developers who get additional Gross Floor Area when they set aside preschool space at cheap rents and let the government use the space for any type of operator. We should actively pursue all options to increase the state’s child care bank to cater to the mass market.
How do we allocate these centres? Rather than have more Anchor Operators, I have another suggestion.
The Anchor Operators concept has skewed the market. It is like giving a boxer super glooves and energy boosters while tying the hands of the competitor and asking them to fight each other. The stated objective for Anchor Operators was to “develop childcare operators that will set the benchmark for quality and affordable childcare services.”
It may have allowed Anchor Operators to achieve higher quality as they get resources, economy of scale, and certainty of their leases. Is it fair to expect other operators to keep pace? Other operators get little or no state funding. They hesitate to invest, worried if others will outbid them for their centres at each renewal, which will wipe out sunk investment. New HDB sites are so few compared to unannounced sites for Anchor Operators. Anchor Operators could lure their staff away with scholarships. Instead of encouraging other operators to step up, it can cause some to think short term and extract as much out of their investment while they can.
We can apply contestability. Contest clusters of sites openly based on concept rather than on rent. This was done before, when government building sites charged token rent and selection was on other factors such as quality and fees.
There is no need for a one-time selection of new Anchor Operators which will strengthen only a select few and weaken everyone else. Worst, it may become impossible for new operators to enter the market, killing off future innovation. We need active competition to raise standards and to continuously drive innovation.
Recurrent and other grants should apply to all qualifying participants as long as they meet strict selection criteria on fees and quality. There should be no differentiation between private and non profit operators. We already know what the current Anchor Operators can do with the support they had been given. Why have we been limiting ourselves to think only selected non profit players can bring cost down? Let’s open up and see how all others, including private operators can better that in terms of price and quality, if given similar support. I believe fair competition may even force current Anchor Operators to better their pricing, ultimately benefiting consumers.
New operators can surface from time to time. Small operators may band together into economic groups to better compete.
Contestability will drive diversity and quality. Operators cannot increase fees without approval. The government will regain control over the fee process to ensure affordability.
Government can better direct its key programmes. MCYS had found it hard to get private operators to go along with some of its programmes, such as SPARK. Last month, we were told only 115 preschools had attained SPARK accreditation, of which just 39 were private operators. This is way way below the target of 85% of all centres to be SPARK-tested by 2013, a figure established by Minister of State for Education, Mr Masagos in November 2010. We can allow only SPARK-accredited operators to contest these sites.
There may not even be a need for state-run preschools. The call for nationalisation was made by many frustrated with differing standards and high costs. We can improve quality even at the low cost segment by having a critical mass of centres available in this public-good model, and the state regulate to steer quality and pricing. It can designate some centres for the low income group by packaging centres for different market segments in each tender exercise.
While this proposal is in the context of child care, it can also be used for kindergatens.
In summary, I am calling for child care to be a public good with fair contestability of sites at managed rents for all types of operators, with tighter control of fees and quality by the state. This will benefit Singaporeans as fees will drop industry-wide while preserving diversity and driving up quality and innovation. I hope the government can carefully consider this proposal.
We need to conduct detail study and identify the real problems and which entity's interest to focus on before suggesting solutions for problems. Otherwise suggestion with good intent, may not end up benefiting the wrong entity.
For child care industry, entities are mainly the citizen (consumer), the private operators, the non profit operators, the suppliers or service providers of the operators, landlords, and the civil service (or government agency). Who's interest to focus?
The private operators and the suppliers or service providers of the operators are private business entities, their primary motive is profit minimization. While the non profit operators are not supposed to be profit driven, it may lead to inefficient service delivery, either in term cost or quality or productivity.
In my opinion, we should be focusing on the mass citizen interest's here. Financial burden for raising child should be kept to as low as possible. Business entities should not be allowed to profiteer at the expense of the parents and the society. For those who is willing to pay a high premium for premium child care, there should be no lacking in private operators if the profit is good enough, should the mass subsidy such preference?
Those with business experiences or ideas should help to drive the fees down for both private and non profit operators in order to help the citizen in lowering the cost of raising child. If we can compile a list of all private operators, their fees charges and details break down of the operating cost and profit of these private operators, and compare with that of the Anchor Operators, then civil servants can use these data to drive the fees down. Those with connections or friends in the child care industry can help to come up with such details, and use the information to request the civil servants to drive the fees that the Anchors Operators charge the citizen down immediately. This benefits the citizen.
Of course, if the Anchor Operator's fee is successfully driven down and results in a huge gap between the fees of Anchor operators and the fees of the private operators, there will comes a trigger point where citizen will move to Anchor Operators resulting the loss of business to the private operators. Private operators with such concerns may for his own business interest not help us and provide data for us to compile the data list, but we can engage those with past child care business experience, to help us work out such details.
Logically, if both Anchor and private operators are given the same grants and benefits, the cost of Anchor operators should be lower as it is non profit, the private operator's profit will add to the cost to the citizen. So what is wrong?
Like what Mr. Yee pointed out :
“The difference in monthly rent between non profit and private operators can be $15,000 per month or more. Divide $15,000 by a typical centre enrolment of 75 children. That works out to around $200 cost advantage per child per month. With setup grants, Anchor Operators need to provide less for amortization of investment. They get ongoing grants to defray costs. Yet with these cost advantages, non-profit’s median fees is currently just two hundred over dollars lower than that of private operators. We can find private centres whose fees are not much higher than that of Anchor Operators. Are Anchor Operators with all these cost advantages, really doing enough to keep fees affordable? “
Should we focus on the cost, management and operations efficiency and productivity of Anchor operators? Those with private business experience can compliment the lacking of business shrewdness of the civil servant in managing the Anchor operators by sharing the private world with them. By helping them to ask the right questions, such as why with the Anchor Operators cost advantages, the median fee is only $200 cheaper that private operators? By asking questions like:
Are the Anchor operators paying too much for the manpower? Paying too much to their management?
Are there cost aware? Do they constant do cost reduction, wither through negotiating with suppliers or study process improvement?
Are the Anchor Operators consolidate their purchases to get better pricing from their suppliers and services providers to reduce cost and past the saving to citizen?
Do the Anchor Operators have related companies (different profit center) profiteering from supplies of products and services to the Anchor Operators, or other dealing such rental, cost sharing or business arrangement, although the child care operations itself is non profit?
Season businessman can share knowledge with the civil servants and share with them not to accept the Anchor Operators answers and stop thinking and ask further, as most private business for obvious reasons will always tell others that they have little profit or even no profit or no benefited from transactions. For example, if the civil servants ask the Anchor Operator whether they are profiting from it's child care operations, and the Anchor Operators reply with the statement like “We are not profiting or benefiting from the operations as we are non profit Anchor operators”, then they should behave like those in private business and probe further to see whether that is a “statement of truth” or a “statement of 此地无银三百两” (“There is no 3 millions ounces of sliver here”)?
If we can suggest or recommend ways to help the civil servants to drive cost efficiency and the productivity of the Anchor Operators, and ways to track cost of Anchor Operators (such as zero based costing), and ways to ensure that there is non-profit for Anchor operators, then this maybe the faster ways that the citizen can benefit greatly by having a much lower cost in child care. This relieves their financial burden and benefits them. That will in turn drive the cost of private operators down ass well. Why should we help? Because high fees and excessive profits that operators made of child cares burden our fellow citizen, affect their quality of live, and comes with the associated social cost that will affect you and me.
For a lighter note, share the story of “此地无银三百两”:
http://hanyu.iciba.com/chengyu/647.shtml
从前有个人叫张三，喜欢自作聪明。他积攒了三百两银子，心里很高兴，但是他也很苦恼，怕这么多钱被别人偷走，不知道存放在哪里才安全。带在身上吧，很不方 便，容易让小偷察觉；放在抽屉里吧，觉得不妥当，也容易被小偷偷去，反正放在哪里都不方便。 他捧着银子，冥思苦想了半天，想来想去，最后终于想出了自认为最好 的方法。张三趁黑夜，在自家房后，墙角下挖了一个坑，悄悄把银子埋在里面。埋好后，他还是不放心，害怕别人怀疑这里埋了银子。他又想了想，终于又想出 了一个办法。他回屋，在一张白纸上写上"此地无银三百两"七个大字。 然后，出去贴在坑边的墙上。他感到这样是很安全的了，便回屋睡觉了。 张三一整天心神不定的样子，早已经被邻居王二注意到了，晚上又听到 屋外有挖坑的声音，感到十分奇怪。就在张三回屋睡觉时，王二去了屋后，借月光，看到墙角上贴着纸条，写着"此地无银三百两"七个大字。王二一切都明 白了。他轻手轻脚把银子挖出来后，再把坑填好。 王二回到自己的家里，见到眼前的白花花的银子高兴极了，但又害怕了起来。他一想，如果明天张三发现银子丢了，怀疑是我怎么办？于是，他也 灵机一动，自作聪明拿起笔，在纸上写到"隔壁王二不曾偷"七个大字，也贴在 坑边的墙角上。〔注〕：后来人们根据这个民间故事，把这句话"此地无银三百两，隔壁王 二不曾偷"当作一个成语，用来比喻自作聪明，想要隐瞒，掩饰所干的事情， 结果反而更加暴露明显了。
Once upon a time a man accumulated three million ounces of silver, but was worried that it might be stolen by thieves. He could not find a place to keep those silver safely. He finally figured out the best way. He digged a pit near the wall of his house and buried the money inside. After that, he was worried that others know that there are silvers buried here. He wrote a note “ There is no 3 millions ounces of sliver here” and pasted on the wall. He felt safe and went to sleep. His neighbor saw what happened, and digged out the silvers after he went to sleep. His neighbor then pasted a note “ your neighbor never steal” after he took the silver. This folk tale, and the phrase "There is no 3 millions ounces of sliver here, your neighbor never steal" is used to express the act of trying to conceal or hide but resulted in more exposure or completely exposed metaphorically.
For child care industry, entities are mainly the citizen (consumer), the private operators, the non profit operators, the suppliers or service providers of the operators, landlords, and the civil service (or government agency). Who's interest to focus?
The private operators and the suppliers or service providers of the operators are private business entities, their primary motive is profit minimization. While the non profit operators are not supposed to be profit driven, it may lead to inefficient service delivery, either in term cost or quality or productivity.
In my opinion, we should be focusing on the mass citizen interest's here. Financial burden for raising child should be kept to as low as possible. Business entities should not be allowed to profiteer at the expense of the parents and the society. For those who is willing to pay a high premium for premium child care, there should be no lacking in private operators if the profit is good enough, should the mass subsidy such preference?
Those with business experiences or ideas should help to drive the fees down for both private and non profit operators in order to help the citizen in lowering the cost of raising child. If we can compile a list of all private operators, their fees charges and details break down of the operating cost and profit of these private operators, and compare with that of the Anchor Operators, then civil servants can use these data to drive the fees down. Those with connections or friends in the child care industry can help to come up with such details, and use the information to request the civil servants to drive the fees that the Anchors Operators charge the citizen down immediately. This benefits the citizen.
Of course, if the Anchor Operator's fee is successfully driven down and results in a huge gap between the fees of Anchor operators and the fees of the private operators, there will comes a trigger point where citizen will move to Anchor Operators resulting the loss of business to the private operators. Private operators with such concerns may for his own business interest not help us and provide data for us to compile the data list, but we can engage those with past child care business experience, to help us work out such details.
Logically, if both Anchor and private operators are given the same grants and benefits, the cost of Anchor operators should be lower as it is non profit, the private operator's profit will add to the cost to the citizen. So what is wrong?
Like what Mr. Yee pointed out :
“The difference in monthly rent between non profit and private operators can be $15,000 per month or more. Divide $15,000 by a typical centre enrolment of 75 children. That works out to around $200 cost advantage per child per month. With setup grants, Anchor Operators need to provide less for amortization of investment. They get ongoing grants to defray costs. Yet with these cost advantages, non-profit’s median fees is currently just two hundred over dollars lower than that of private operators. We can find private centres whose fees are not much higher than that of Anchor Operators. Are Anchor Operators with all these cost advantages, really doing enough to keep fees affordable? “
Should we focus on the cost, management and operations efficiency and productivity of Anchor operators? Those with private business experience can compliment the lacking of business shrewdness of the civil servant in managing the Anchor operators by sharing the private world with them. By helping them to ask the right questions, such as why with the Anchor Operators cost advantages, the median fee is only $200 cheaper that private operators? By asking questions like:
Are the Anchor operators paying too much for the manpower? Paying too much to their management?
Are there cost aware? Do they constant do cost reduction, wither through negotiating with suppliers or study process improvement?
Are the Anchor Operators consolidate their purchases to get better pricing from their suppliers and services providers to reduce cost and past the saving to citizen?
Do the Anchor Operators have related companies (different profit center) profiteering from supplies of products and services to the Anchor Operators, or other dealing such rental, cost sharing or business arrangement, although the child care operations itself is non profit?
Season businessman can share knowledge with the civil servants and share with them not to accept the Anchor Operators answers and stop thinking and ask further, as most private business for obvious reasons will always tell others that they have little profit or even no profit or no benefited from transactions. For example, if the civil servants ask the Anchor Operator whether they are profiting from it's child care operations, and the Anchor Operators reply with the statement like “We are not profiting or benefiting from the operations as we are non profit Anchor operators”, then they should behave like those in private business and probe further to see whether that is a “statement of truth” or a “statement of 此地无银三百两” (“There is no 3 millions ounces of sliver here”)?
If we can suggest or recommend ways to help the civil servants to drive cost efficiency and the productivity of the Anchor Operators, and ways to track cost of Anchor Operators (such as zero based costing), and ways to ensure that there is non-profit for Anchor operators, then this maybe the faster ways that the citizen can benefit greatly by having a much lower cost in child care. This relieves their financial burden and benefits them. That will in turn drive the cost of private operators down ass well. Why should we help? Because high fees and excessive profits that operators made of child cares burden our fellow citizen, affect their quality of live, and comes with the associated social cost that will affect you and me.
For a lighter note, share the story of “此地无银三百两”:
http://hanyu.iciba.com/chengyu/647.shtml
从前有个人叫张三，喜欢自作聪明。他积攒了三百两银子，心里很高兴，但是他也很苦恼，怕这么多钱被别人偷走，不知道存放在哪里才安全。带在身上吧，很不方 便，容易让小偷察觉；放在抽屉里吧，觉得不妥当，也容易被小偷偷去，反正放在哪里都不方便。 他捧着银子，冥思苦想了半天，想来想去，最后终于想出了自认为最好 的方法。张三趁黑夜，在自家房后，墙角下挖了一个坑，悄悄把银子埋在里面。埋好后，他还是不放心，害怕别人怀疑这里埋了银子。他又想了想，终于又想出 了一个办法。他回屋，在一张白纸上写上"此地无银三百两"七个大字。 然后，出去贴在坑边的墙上。他感到这样是很安全的了，便回屋睡觉了。 张三一整天心神不定的样子，早已经被邻居王二注意到了，晚上又听到 屋外有挖坑的声音，感到十分奇怪。就在张三回屋睡觉时，王二去了屋后，借月光，看到墙角上贴着纸条，写着"此地无银三百两"七个大字。王二一切都明 白了。他轻手轻脚把银子挖出来后，再把坑填好。 王二回到自己的家里，见到眼前的白花花的银子高兴极了，但又害怕了起来。他一想，如果明天张三发现银子丢了，怀疑是我怎么办？于是，他也 灵机一动，自作聪明拿起笔，在纸上写到"隔壁王二不曾偷"七个大字，也贴在 坑边的墙角上。〔注〕：后来人们根据这个民间故事，把这句话"此地无银三百两，隔壁王 二不曾偷"当作一个成语，用来比喻自作聪明，想要隐瞒，掩饰所干的事情， 结果反而更加暴露明显了。
Once upon a time a man accumulated three million ounces of silver, but was worried that it might be stolen by thieves. He could not find a place to keep those silver safely. He finally figured out the best way. He digged a pit near the wall of his house and buried the money inside. After that, he was worried that others know that there are silvers buried here. He wrote a note “ There is no 3 millions ounces of sliver here” and pasted on the wall. He felt safe and went to sleep. His neighbor saw what happened, and digged out the silvers after he went to sleep. His neighbor then pasted a note “ your neighbor never steal” after he took the silver. This folk tale, and the phrase "There is no 3 millions ounces of sliver here, your neighbor never steal" is used to express the act of trying to conceal or hide but resulted in more exposure or completely exposed metaphorically.
